1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. CONT.CAS(C) No.117/2015 & CM No.2981/2015 (for stay)

3. The respondent, in this petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is averred to be in civil contempt (within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the said Act) for the reason of, inspite of having arrived at a settlement with the petitioner that both will withdraw cases filed against each other and in terms of which settlement the petitioner withdrew complaints (pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (MM)-11, Central Delhi, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM)-01, Central Delhi, MM-06, Central Delhi and MM-08, Central Delhi) having not withdrawn the cases filed by the respondent against the petitioner.

4. At the time of withdrawal of the complaints filed by the petitioner in each of the cases, the statement of the petitioner was recorded inter alia to the effect that he had entered into a settlement with the respondent and whereunder both had agreed to withdraw all the cases pending against each other and praying to the Court to dispose of the complaint as withdrawn or seeking liberty to withdraw the complaints.

5. In some of the aforesaid cases, the statement of the respondent was also recorded to the effect that he had entered into settlement with the petitioner, whereunder both had agreed to withdraw all cases pending against each other and either also praying to the Court to dispose of the subject complaint as withdrawn or giving no objection to the complaint filed by the petitioner being dismissed as withdrawn. In other cases, though the statement of the respondent was not recorded but the respondent was present, when the statement of the petitioner was recorded.

6. The said complaints (filed by the petitioner) were dismissed as withdrawn or disposed of as settled.

7. Section 2(b) supra defines civil contempt as meaning wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court.

8. Not finding any judgment, decree, order or direction of any Court directing the respondent to withdraw the complaints/cases filed by him and also not finding the respondent to have given any undertaking to any of the aforesaid Courts from which the petitioner had withdrawn the complaints, to the effect that the respondent shall also withdraw the cases/complaints filed by him, I have at the outset enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, as to how a case for entertaining this contempt case, is made out.

9. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the respondent, in each of the Courts from which the petitioner withdrew his complaints, affirmed the settlement on the basis of which the petitioner withdrew his complaints and which thus led the petitioner into withdrawing his complaints, the action of the respondent of not, in accordance with the said settlement, withdrawing the cases/complaints filed by him against the petitioner, is contumacious. A bunch of following judgments has been handed over:

(I) National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation of India Vs. Lalit Mohan 151 (2008) DLT 99;

(II) Santosh Kapoor Vs. Apex Computers P. Ltd. 157 (2009) DLT 125;

(III) D.K. Attery Vs. Kanwal Singh Mehra 159 (2009) DLT 764;

(IV) Poonam Khanna Vs. V.P. Sharma 170 (2010) DLT 680; and

(V) R.P. Malik Vs. Anil Sharma 154 (2008) DLT 647 (DB), though specific attention invited only to para 3 of Poonam Khanna.

10. Poonam Khanna was not a contempt case but a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Guardianship Judge holding a second petition in respect of guardianship of child to be maintainable because of non-compliance of the settlement arrived at between the parties in an earlier similar petition. A learned Single Judge of this Court, while reversing the order of the Guardianship Judge for the reason that the remedy wa